Ecoboost turbo question!!!

[Snox801]

We could settle this debate very easily. If anyone has any evidence that oil coking is a widespread issue please share it. I've looked, and I can't find any. Ford has been making its line of EcoBoost engines for well over a decade now; there are literally MILLIONS of them in operation around the world. If there were any widespread issues with turbo-related oil coking I think we would know about it by now. Show me the data.

Here try this. This is from turbo smart. Scroll down to turbo care. It specifically mentions water cooled and care.
Still says it’s good idea to warm and cool them.
But I assume you won’t take the word of that company either.
https://www.turbosmart.com/news/boost-your-knowledge-the-ultimate-guide-to-turbochargers/

Sponsored

 

[Mark S.]

So that is where you are making a mistake.
Your argument is that coking doesn’t happen.
The test says yes it happens and how to mitigate it.
So yes the purpose of the test is to mitigate it. Yes but why would they need that test if it didn’t happen?
With your argument they have absolutely no need to even run the test.

I never said coking isn't possible, I said modern cooling strategies negates the need for a cool down.

 

[Mark S.]

Part of the problem is that most people that have high mileage like myself do cool it down.
As for the ecoboost being around forever yes. You certainly can find many many turbo failures. Part fails they replace.

Then it should be easy for you to find that data and share it.

Again probably some of them from coking hence ford, gm, and other constantly updating the parameters of the test.

"Probably?" You can't make stuff up. Either these turbo failures you refer to were caused by coking or they weren't.

 

[Snox801]

I never said coking isn't possible, I said modern cooling strategies negates the need for a cool down.

Those go hand in hand. Coming is caused by oil basically not flowing and cooking it in place. Caused by a red hot turbo tuned off without coolant flow.
Same as running your truck hard and just turning it off. Anyone who has ever been to the track or a dyno know you can do that. They specifically tell you to let it idle. Not only does you oil stop flowing over hot parts your coolant does.

 

[Snox801]

Then it should be easy for you to find that data and share it.




"Probably?" You can't make stuff up. Either these turbo failures you refer to were caused by coking or they weren't.

Well since I haven’t personally verified them I can’t say for sure they were. Most ford techs are not required to dig any deeper either. Those parts can sometimes be shipped back to ford. Which if that is the case you would never know the cause anyway. They keep that tight lipped for a reason

 

[Snox801]

Then it should be easy for you to find that data and share it.




"Probably?" You can't make stuff up. Either these turbo failures you refer to were caused by coking or they weren't.

Same for you. I post a test for it based on GM standards.
Turbo smart. Yet you have posted nothing absolutely nothing saying that cool down is not needed. Just you telling us.

 

[Mark S.]

Here try this. This is from turbo smart. Scroll down to turbo care. It specifically mentions water cooled and care.
Still says it’s good idea to warm and cool them.
But I assume you won’t take the word of that company either.
https://www.turbosmart.com/news/boost-your-knowledge-the-ultimate-guide-to-turbochargers/

This is a retailer that sells turbochargers, some of which do not incorporate water cooling; it makes sense for them to offer advice for those types of turbochargers. I shared data directly from turbo manufacturers that says their water-cooled turbos do not require a cool down. That seems definitive to me.

 

[Mark S.]

Same for you. I post a test for it based on GM standards.

Again, that test is not meant to demonstrate a need for an idle cool down period, it's meant to validate the recommended oil specification.

Yet you have posted nothing absolutely nothing saying that cool down is not needed. Just you telling us.

Did you actually read any of the links I shared? This is from Garrett, one of the world's most respected turbocharger manufacturers:

Does a turbocharged engine require a cool down period after driving?
Cool-down periods – where drivers would have to let vehicles idle before shutting them off – are a thing of the past. Today’s vehicles have technologically advanced controllers that take into account a turbocharger’s high operating temperature and compensate for the cool down period even after the vehicle has been shut off.

I have told you the proof I will accept: Show me data indicating a widespread problem with turbocharger-related oil coking. That's really the only way to end the debate.

 

[mstrbill]

I'll take automakers, who interestingly enough do not recommend a cool down.

No, Ford doesn‘t say anything about it. But other mfg’ers do like VW. Both 1.8 L and 2.0 L turbo engines in our fleet have electric water pumps that run after the key is turned off and removed.

 

[Mark S.]

No, Ford doesn‘t say anything about it. But other mfg’ers do like VW. Both 1.8 L and 2.0 L turbo engines in our fleet have electric water pumps that run after the key is turned off and removed.

The automaker I was referring to is Ford. VW may have different design elements that make a cool down required. Again, we can end this debate with finality if someone would simply post data showing there is a widespread issue with turbocharger related oil coking. I think it's safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of Ford EcoBoost owners do not take the time to conduct a cool down. If it were necessary to prevent oil coking then data on the numerous reports should be readily available.

 

[Snox801]

Again, that test is not meant to demonstrate a need for an idle cool down period, it's meant to validate the recommended oil specification.


Did you actually read any of the links I shared? This is from Garrett, one of the world's most respected turbocharger manufacturers:



I have told you the proof I will accept: Show me data indicating a widespread problem with turbocharger-related oil coking. That's really the only way to end the debate.

Not ford. Some yes have countdown clocks. But our do not.
I can also tell you from working with turbo companies for a long time. They all will tell you that it’s a good idea.
Again. I think you are missing the point. The coming test is to see if the oil is up to the task. But that only means one thing. They are coming.
you are basically say it never happens. Which it does or they would not have to make sure the oil is in spec. Same with lspi. Yes the oils can be a band aid but doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

 

[Snox801]

The automaker I was referring to is Ford. VW may have different design elements that make a cool down required. Again, we can end this debate with finality if someone would simply post data showing there is a widespread issue with turbocharger related oil coking. I think it's safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of Ford EcoBoost owners do not take the time to conduct a cool down. If it were necessary to prevent oil coking then data on the numerous reports should be readily available.

Again why don’t you post data?
What would you consider good data? I’ve posted a few. Turbo smart clearly states that even with cooled turbos it’s a good idea. But I guess what would they know?

 

[MakinDoForNow]

WOW all this and I always thought the guy's that sat in their trucks for several minutes when they got home were composing a story for the wife.

 

[Mark S.]

you are basically say it never happens.

I have corrected you twice on this: I am NOT saying that coking isn't possible. I am saying the mitigation strategies (water cooling and modern engine oil) make a cool down unnecessary.

I'll try one more time: Millions of Ford EcoBoost engines have been in operation around the world for a decade-and-a-half. If turbos in these engines were suffering from turbo-related oil coking then the many owner reports should be easy to find. Where are they? If you can't find any (I couldn't) then I think there's no point in continuing this debate. You clearly refuse to read any of the posts I've linked and continually mischaracterize my position.

 

[Mark S.]

Again why don’t you post data?

I refer you to my previous post.

https://www.mavericktruckclub.com/forum/threads/ecoboost-turbo-question.62479/post-1052821

Sponsored